Aussie or US open as premier hard event

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
Aussie open was a joke for decades but the last decade I think it has surpassed the US open in every way possible

The players are healthier into the event
The grounds look vastly better
The stadiums are superior and correct size

The US I see ugly stadiums that are way to large and too many tickets that cater to wealthy corporations

Agree or not
 

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
In the here and now... in my opinion, the two tournaments have the same value, I make no distinctions based on history, perceptions of prestige or what have you... and stadium size, corporate influence etc. are irrelevant to me

Only real difference is they don't play deciding set tie-breaks at US, which is just about a negligible factor... but if I had to split a hair, I'd favour Aus on the grounds that they do

Aussie open was a joke for decades but the last decade I think it has surpassed the US open in every way possible

The grounds look vastly better
The stadiums are superior and correct size

The US I see ugly stadiums that are way to large and too many tickets that cater to wealthy corporations


The Aussie open was a "joke for decades" because many/most of the top players didn't rate it enough to bother with - NOT because of how good the grounds looked, size of the stadium and corporate what-not... so listing those points as reasons for why its superseded US doesn't seem relevant

It also wasn't held on hard courts til 1988 - making it readily comparable to the US Open (which has been on hard courts since 1978) on the grounds of surface moot before that point too

There was a 'drag' effect for awhile after 1988, which gave US Open the edge because people were adjusting to the change and saw the US as being more "prestigious". Also because the two leading players in the 90s were Americans - and both put a premium on their home Slam (though Agassi ended up more successful Down Under... he actually skipped it til 1995, apparently because he didn't rate it highly enough to bother)

Since at least the mid 90s, I see no reason to rank US over Aus... its an idea based on outdated circumstances
 

reaper

Legend
This year it's no contest...but it's part of a long term pattern. Everyone is fit at the AO, at the USO you have a lot of attrition, this year to the point where at least 3 of the top 10 won't be there.
 

TearTheRoofOff

G.O.A.T.
In the here and now... in my opinion, the two tournaments have the same value, I make no distinctions based on history, perceptions of prestige or what have you... and stadium size, corporate influence etc. are irrelevant to me

Only real difference is they don't play deciding set tie-breaks at US, which is just about a negligible factor... but if I had to split a hair, I'd favour Aus on the grounds that they do




The Aussie open was a "joke for decades" because many/most of the top players didn't rate it enough to bother with - NOT because of how good the grounds looked, size of the stadium and corporate what-not... so listing those points as reasons for why its superseded US doesn't seem relevant

It also wasn't held on hard courts til 1988 - making it readily comparable to the US Open (which has been on hard courts since 1978) on the grounds of surface moot before that point too

There was a 'drag' effect for awhile after 1988, which gave US Open the edge because people were adjusting to the change and saw the US as being more "prestigious". Also because the two leading players in the 90s were Americans - and both put a premium on their home Slam (though Agassi ended up more successful Down Under... he actually skipped it til 1995, apparently because he didn't rate it highly enough to bother)

Since at least the mid 90s, I see no reason to rank US over Aus... its an idea based on outdated circumstances

Why did they not rate it enough to bother with the Aus? I assume there was some underlying factor and this wasn't the fundamental reason for it's 'joke' perception?
 

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
Why did they not rate it enough to bother with the Aus? I assume there was some underlying factor and this wasn't the fundamental reason for it's 'joke' perception?

Mostly money, I believe and perhaps a lingering sense of it not being as "prestigious" as the other majors

Makes sense, given the huge fuss over professionals and amateurs that had gone on for most of tennis history

In the Open Era, Kodes (3 Slams - Wimbledon, 2 Frenches), Smith (2 Slams - Wimbledon, US), Nastase (2 Slams - French, US) never competed at Aus.

Connors did twice, Borg once. McEnroe twice during his prime (played more regularly when he was washed up and managed to get himself disqualified one year)

Lendl skipped one year citing a grass allergy, which strangely never kept him from SW19

Edberg, who won the last two editions played on grass (85 & 87), considered his Wimbledon title in 1988 to be his first "real" Major

---

Didn't have a 128 man field until 1988. Prior to that year, very rarely were all matches best of 5 (all the Slams, bar Wimbledon have experimented with Bo3 in in early rounds - none to remotely like the extent as Aus)

There were byes in early rounds and the choice of who got those byes seems to have been pretty random

One year, they had Bo3 matches for a couple of round, than Bo5 for one round, than Bo3 again for a couple of rounds, than Bo5 for the last few rounds

A joke for a lot of reasons, but I imagine at the root of it all was -

 
Last edited:

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
Uh, Aus Open was the best slam of 2017 by far...

Aus Open SF's: Epic 5 setter between Dimitrov and Nadal. epic 5 setter between Stan and Federer
Aus Open Final: Epic 5 setter between Federer and Nadal

French Open SF's: 5 setter between Murray/Stan with a breadstick to end the match, boring 3 set win from Nadal on Thiem with a final set bagel.
French Open Final: super boring 3 setter between Nadal/Stan with Stan winning just 6 games in 3 sets...

Wimbledon SF's: 4 setter between Cilic and Querrey, 3 setter between Federer and Berdych..
Wimbledon Final: Boring 3 setter between Federer and Cilic with Cilic winning just 8 games in 3 sets.


Yeah, French and Wimbledon were horrendously boring and embarrassing.. Australian Open was AMAZING, great level of competition and many great matches including both SF's and the Final.
 
Last edited:

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
The French Open is so pathetic they don't even have a roofed stadium which impacts the schedule of play and the surface. Australia meanwhile has THREE covered stadiums. 3 > 0.

Wimbledon also has one and USO I believe is using their's this year for the first time. The French Open should be demoted if any slam has to.
 

reaper

Legend
Mostly money, I believe and perhaps a lingering sense of it not being as "prestigious" as the other majors

Makes sense, given the huge fuss over professionals and amateurs that had gone on for most of tennis history

In the Open Era, Kodes (3 Slams - Wimbledon, 2 Frenches), Smith (2 Slams - Wimbledon, US), Nastase (2 Slams - French, US) never competed at Aus.

Connors did twice, Borg once. McEnroe twice during his prime (played more regularly when he was washed up and managed to get himself disqualified one year)

Lendl skipped one year citing a grass allergy, which strangely never kept him from SW19

Edberg, who won the last two editions played on grass (85 & 87), considered his Wimbledon title in 1988 to be his first "real" Major

---

Didn't have a 128 man field until 1988. Prior to that year, very rarely were all matches best of 5 (all the Slams, bar Wimbledon have experimented with Bo3 in in early rounds - none to remotely like the extent as Aus)

There were byes in early rounds and the choice of who got those byes seems to have been pretty random

One year, they had Bo3 matches for a couple of round, than Bo5 for one round, than Bo3 again for a couple of rounds, than Bo5 for the last few rounds

A joke for a lot of reasons, but I imagine at the root of it all was -


If you go back to the 1970's the world was much less global. The Australian Open had far more prestige for Australian players than other nationalities. Global TV rights/revenue weren't worth anything like what they are now. The tournament started on December 26, which is a big day in Australia sport, but didn't fit in with Christmas plans for northern hemisphere players. Over the last 25 years the world has become smaller, and the Australian Open has grown from an event of national significance to Australians, to one of significance across the tennis world.
 

TearTheRoofOff

G.O.A.T.
Mostly money, I believe and perhaps a lingering sense of it not being as "prestigious" as the other majors

Makes sense, given the huge fuss over professionals and amateurs that had gone on for most of tennis history

In the Open Era, Kodes (3 Slams - Wimbledon, 2 Frenches), Smith (2 Slams - Wimbledon, US), Nastase (2 Slams - French, US) never competed at Aus.

Connors did twice, Borg once. McEnroe twice during his prime (played more regularly when he was washed up and managed to get himself disqualified one year)

Lendl skipped one year citing a grass allergy, which strangely never kept him from SW19

Edberg, who won the last two editions played on grass (85 & 87), considered his Wimbledon title in 1988 to be his first "real" Major

---

Didn't have a 128 man field until 1988. Prior to that year, very rarely were all matches best of 5 (all the Slams, bar Wimbledon have experimented with Bo3 in in early rounds - none to remotely like the extent as Aus)

There were byes in early rounds and the choice of who got those byes seems to have been pretty random

One year, they had Bo3 matches for a couple of round, than Bo5 for one round, than Bo3 again for a couple of rounds, than Bo5 for the last few rounds

A joke for a lot of reasons, but I imagine at the root of it all was -


Thanks for the detailed info. Money is likely the major contributor I agree.

However, with this in mind, I would suggest that the points made about the tournament's prestige and size/worth held some merit, as these were somewhat influential in the quasi-boycott that was prevalent at the time, rather than vice versa. However, it was likely a case of both exacerbating the other, really. Lower perceived prestige and value influencing top players to skip it, while the players skipping it lowered the perceived prestige and value further. bit of a nightmare really. I'm glad the AO is held in as high esteem as it is now.
 

NEW_BORN

Hall of Fame
Ever since they built the roof on Arthur Ash i've started to warm more to the USO.
When Federer, Djokovic walked out for the final in 2015, it had the atmosphere of a heavyweight bout, different to any other i can remember.
If only they made the USO final a night fixture like the AO, it would go a long way to pulling the USO up a rungs in my book.
 

SinjinCooper

Hall of Fame
Aussie will never be anywhere near the US in terms of which is the "premier" HC event.

It's a good tournament, and probably a legitimate slam these days. But it's still a distant 4th in terms of relevance when it comes to the GS calendar.
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
The French Open is so pathetic they don't even have a roofed stadium which impacts the schedule of play and the surface. Australia meanwhile has THREE covered stadiums. 3 > 0.

Wimbledon also has one and USO I believe is using their's this year for the first time. The French Open should be demoted if any slam has to.

Its not like they didnt want a roof at RG. They started the process years ago. It was stopped because of enviromental causes and how to build it, has to do w the place its located. Now they have come to an agreement and it will be built.
 

The_18th_Slam

Hall of Fame
Aussie will never be anywhere near the US in terms of which is the "premier" HC event.

It's a good tournament, and probably a legitimate slam these days. But it's still a distant 4th in terms of relevance when it comes to the GS calendar.
tenor.gif
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
Aussie will never be anywhere near the US in terms of which is the "premier" HC event.

It's a good tournament, and probably a legitimate slam these days. But it's still a distant 4th in terms of relevance when it comes to the GS calendar.
Why do you think this? The slams all seem of equal relevance to me
 

Dilexson

Hall of Fame
Don't think either one has an edge.
that being said i favor USO , tennis seems more lively in Arthur Ashe.
 

TennisATP

Professional
The Olympics when played on hardcourt is the best that I've seen in terms of organisation, quality, prestige, etc... The AO and USO are close behind though...
 
A

AllCourtHeathen

Guest
Aussie will never be anywhere near the US in terms of which is the "premier" HC event.

It's a good tournament, and probably a legitimate slam these days. But it's still a distant 4th in terms of relevance when it comes to the GS calendar.

LOL! The Aus Open is the most entertaining by far. No one skips it, everyone is hungry to win it, everyone is fit, it has the best facilities. The French Open is hands down the worst, I couldn't even be bothered watching it.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
Uh, Aus Open was the best slam of 2017 by far...

No one (but Nadal fans) would argue that, but the question is about how the AO compares to the USO in prestige and in history. It's a fact that the AO has risen dramatically in stature and the USO seemingly has declined. Most pros didn't even bother playing at the AO until Lendl really made a push in 1983. Lendl really transformed the event into a viable major. But historically speaking, the USO wins hands down. It was easily the second most prestigious major until relatively recently.
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
No one (but Nadal fans) would argue that, but the question is about how the AO compares to the USO in prestige and in history. It's a fact that the AO has risen dramatically in stature and the USO seemingly has declined. Most pros didn't even bother playing at the AO until Lendl really made a push in 1983. Lendl really transformed the event into a viable major. But historically speaking, the USO wins hands down. It was easily the second most prestigious major until relatively recently.
I'm not a Nadal fan so that's not the case here.
And I thought we were discussing which is better now? I view AO above USO but definitely also ahead of the French despite the lack of history.
 
Aussie open was a joke for decades but the last decade I think it has surpassed the US open in every way possible

The players are healthier into the event
The grounds look vastly better
The stadiums are superior and correct size

The US I see ugly stadiums that are way to large and too many tickets that cater to wealthy corporations

Agree or not
USO is a bigger event. Far bigger TV coverage and global audience. AO is innovative and the most forward thinking but still does not have the gravitas of USO.
 
No one (but Nadal fans) would argue that, but the question is about how the AO compares to the USO in prestige and in history. It's a fact that the AO has risen dramatically in stature and the USO seemingly has declined. Most pros didn't even bother playing at the AO until Lendl really made a push in 1983. Lendl really transformed the event into a viable major. But historically speaking, the USO wins hands down. It was easily the second most prestigious major until relatively recently.
FO is second most prestigious...i think. Grass and clay are more prestigious than hard court tennis from what I can gather.

USO is my favourite event. I love it but I don't think it's as big as FO prestige wise. Forget the Nadal factor I base that on KUerten seems more kind of revered than Rafter for instance.

Happy to be wrong. AO still 4th. If anyone is in any doubt then look at the problems Djokovic had getting a major sponsor like Nike or adidas.
 

MugOpponent

Hall of Fame
I like the Aussie Open better than the US and it seems to become more pronounced every year. It's the beginning of the season, the quality of play feels better, players are healthy. The players seem to prefer the AO as well. Other than the time it's played which makes it difficult to follow(which obviously is no fault of the AO), I can't really think of one thing that is better about the US Open.

Nowadays the prestige is basically the same for all the slams except Wimbledon which is always a level above.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
FO is second most prestigious...i think. Grass and clay are more prestigious than hard court tennis from what I can gather.

USO is my favourite event. I love it but I don't think it's as big as FO prestige wise. Forget the Nadal factor I base that on KUerten seems more kind of revered than Rafter for instance.

Happy to be wrong. AO still 4th. If anyone is in any doubt then look at the problems Djokovic had getting a major sponsor like Nike or adidas.

Back in the day, Connors and McEnroe in their primes didn't even bother to play RG a few years and chose WTT instead. The USO was always seen as the most prestigious after Wimbledon, and those two never skipped that tournament. Kuerten is more revered because he won 3 of them and Rafter won 2. Nowadays, all the Slams are about equal with Wimbledon still weighed a little more heavily. It probably will always be that way.
 

JasonZ

Hall of Fame
For me, us open >> australian open. I think if you ask any non australian player what he rather would win, 99 of 100 will say the us open. And the australian players probably also
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
Back in the day, Connors and McEnroe in their primes didn't even bother to play RG a few years and chose WTT instead. The USO was always seen as the most prestigious after Wimbledon, and those two never skipped that tournament. Kuerten is more revered because he won 3 of them and Rafter won 2. Nowadays, all the Slams are about equal with Wimbledon still weighed a little more heavily. It probably will always be that way.
Think its differences from person to person, but also its different for the country where the player is from.
If you grow up w clay and play it a lot, obviously RG is a huge deal, which it is for a lot of the players.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Think its differences from person to person, but also its different for the country where the player is from.
If you grow up w clay and play it a lot, obviously RG is a huge deal, which it is for a lot of the players.

Yea I guess so but I'm just pointing out how even in that era, no one skipped the USO but they did skip RG. Even Borg skipped one RG but never a USO so I do think it was the more important tournament back then but now I would say they are equal.
 

Goosehead

Legend
was watching a bjorn borg int, july 1982, with a usa telly talkshow bigwig john/don carson ??..about borg problems with the tennis admin and he said "and I want to play for many years, also I never won the usopen but I won the other majors wimbledon, and French/rg..."

no mention at all about the aussie open, even though it had major status since 1925, in fact 1982 was the 1st year it was initially moved from dec/jan to nov/dec (before final move to jan in 1987) and 1983 was the famous wilander/lendl/McEnroe appearance.

I noticed also that McEnroe was playing in Australia for a few weeks before the aussie open1982 but played dc final in Grenoble france, which finished the day before aussie open began that year. um lol. (borg was also playing exo tourneys like Sydney nov1982).

usopen has been a top tourney since 19th century. ao only since the 1980s.
 

ibbi

G.O.A.T.
I mean if you're ranking tournaments based on facilities/crowds/quality of tennis, most of the majors wouldn't be the premier event on the surface. The US Open had definitely become a bit of a joke for a lot of the past decade with the constant wind and rain and delayed finals, but the roof on Ashe at least helps a little now. It is absurd to suggest, but it really wouldn't be the worst idea in the world to move it to Indian Wells.
 

BHud

Hall of Fame
The French Open is so pathetic they don't even have a roofed stadium which impacts the schedule of play and the surface. Australia meanwhile has THREE covered stadiums. 3 > 0.

Wimbledon also has one and USO I believe is using their's this year for the first time. The French Open should be demoted if any slam has to.

Do you even watch tennis? The roof has been on at USO for several years now...
 
C

Chadillac

Guest
I like the Aus open much better as a tournament (grounds/fans). Us open is still held in higher reguards, its still #2 behind wimbledon. AO has surpassed the french and is closing in on the US.

The Ao is probably the most advanced tournament, us 2nd, wimbledon 3rd and the french is still the same as it was 80 years ago.
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
Yea I guess so but I'm just pointing out how even in that era, no one skipped the USO but they did skip RG. Even Borg skipped one RG but never a USO so I do think it was the more important tournament back then but now I would say they are equal.
It was a very specific reason why he skipped RG that year. If you start watching documentaries of European players you will get the whole picture. Clay has a special piece in our hearts (at least players in competition).
USO was a lot about revenge and beating certain players. Rivarly is everything, specially back in the days. (and h2h very important hehe, but I dont want to get into a discussion about that)
Take a look in former pro players forum. I just posted a video in there.
 

Roddick85

Hall of Fame
I still see the USO as a more prestigious event than the AO, although I'd say that the gap is narrowing every year. In terms of "tennis quality", I'd rank the AO way ahead though, especially in recent years.
 
US Open

More people in the stands, better crowds, better city with a much better vibe coming to event/being at event/staying the night in between days/etc, more money in the event, more viewers on TV, better and bigger facilities that are getting even bigger and even better, biggest tennis organization in the world owning and running it (USTA)

Not sure there is a comparison other than AO is also a slam
 

HAMPER7777777

New User
Aussie open was a joke for decades but the last decade I think it has surpassed the US open in every way possible

The players are healthier into the event
The grounds look vastly better
The stadiums are superior and correct size

The US I see ugly stadiums that are way to large and too many tickets that cater to wealthy corporations

Agree or not
US. 3 words: 5th set TB! 3 best words in tennis. Also, fans can keep the balls hit into the stands. In other 3 slams, have to give it back (really, why?). 'MURICA baby!
 

thrust

Legend
Aussie open was a joke for decades but the last decade I think it has surpassed the US open in every way possible

The players are healthier into the event
The grounds look vastly better
The stadiums are superior and correct size

The US I see ugly stadiums that are way to large and too many tickets that cater to wealthy corporations

Agree or not
Well then, don't play there-LOL! Of course the players are healthier at the AO as it is in January, at the beginning of the season, not September.
 

thrust

Legend
I like the Aus open much better as a tournament (grounds/fans). Us open is still held in higher reguards, its still #2 behind wimbledon. AO has surpassed the french and is closing in on the US.

The Ao is probably the most advanced tournament, us 2nd, wimbledon 3rd and the french is still the same as it was 80 years ago.
Last night I watched the 02 USO final between Sampras and Agassi. Before that I watched other earlier USO matches on the Tennis Channel and noticed that the ball boys were not handing towels to players after every point, actually, not at all. When did this silly aspect of the game begin? Pardon me if I have NO sympathy for today's players because all their desires are not met.
 

BlueClayGOAT

Semi-Pro
Back in the day, Connors and McEnroe in their primes didn't even bother to play RG a few years and chose WTT instead. The USO was always seen as the most prestigious after Wimbledon, and those two never skipped that tournament.

They probably never skipped the USO because it was their home Slam. Don't think the reason was prestige as such.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
For me, us open >> australian open. I think if you ask any non australian player what he rather would win, 99 of 100 will say the us open. And the australian players probably also
Well said. Murray even said it's his favorite.

AO is a great event - but it will never get close to Wimbledon which will always be 1, USO which will always be 2. Too remote - many tennis fans outside AU miss too many matches; bad weather - just too hot some days to be playing; many players haven't gotten their game together after the offseason and get bounced early. Conversely some guys get hot and have a good run, then suck the rest of the year.

USO is the last final of the year; last chance to make s big splash.
 

BaddJordan

New User
Players are best looked after at AO. Only problem with it is the heat, can cause some serious problems when it gets above 38C.

I enjoy AO more but US is more prestigious. Wimbledon is the most pure tennis and requires a better overall skill set, but I prefer watching the pace of hard court, lots of baseline rallies. French is the worst organised event by a mile.
 

Poisoned Slice

Bionic Poster
US Open

Last night I watched the 02 USO final between Sampras and Agassi. Before that I watched other earlier USO matches on the Tennis Channel and noticed that the ball boys were not handing towels to players after every point, actually, not at all. When did this silly aspect of the game begin? Pardon me if I have NO sympathy for today's players because all their desires are not met.

Amen to that. If you sweat then sweat. Ball boys can scrub during each changeover. Getting the towel after every rally is ridiculous.
 

Goosehead

Legend
Last night I watched the 02 USO final between Sampras and Agassi. Before that I watched other earlier USO matches on the Tennis Channel and noticed that the ball boys were not handing towels to players after every point, actually, not at all. When did this silly aspect of the game begin? Pardon me if I have NO sympathy for today's players because all their desires are not met.
greg Rusedski started the towels thing after points..

so thanks a lot greg. you big GIT.
 
Top